The suspect was booked for attempting to smuggle 5,844 non-duty paid bottles of alcohol. After rejection of his bail, the customs authorities arrested him and sent him to customs lack-up.

During the hearing, investigation officer sought further remand of the suspect, but the court sent him to jail and directed the jail authorities to produce him on the next date of hearing.

On the last date of hearing, investigation officer had produced the suspect before the court and informed that this court had rejected his bail petition, therefore, the Customs Department arrested him and sent him to customs lack-up. He further informed the court that prosecution needs further investigations from the same, therefore, court may send back him on physical remand, after the hearing, court had granted his physical remand and directed investigation officer to produce him on next date of hearing along with progress report.

It needs to be pertained here that on last date of hearing above mentioned suspect had appeared before the court along with his counsel and moved bail petition, counsel argued that his client is innocent and has falsely been implicated by the agency in this case. He further argued that there is no evidence available on record against the petitioner neither he have the connivance nor have any knowledge about the alleged offence and seized goods was replaced by the chowkidar of warehouse, therefore, court may grant him bail.

However, Ashiq Ali Anwar Rana, Special Prosecutor for the customs department had argued that on the ground that the accused is deeply involved in illegally and fraudulently removal/ replacement of goods as alleged in the charge sheet, therefore, bail petition may be rejected.

After the hearing, court rejected his bail petition and observed in this order that “I have heard the counsel for the parties in detail perused the record as specific role has been attributed to the applicant/ accused being owner of warehouse and he is fully responsible for removal of the goods in question from the warehouse. The alleged offence is against the society and as such the accused do not deserve the concession of bail. In view of the above there are sufficient evidence to connect the accused with crime specific allegations have been leveled against the applicant, therefore, appears no mala fide harassment ulterior motives on the part of prosecution, therefore, no case for grant of bail is made out accordingly bail application is rejected”.